From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.214.72 with SMTP id ny8mr1630664obc.18.1416531741637; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:02:21 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.40.20 with SMTP id w20mr18779qgw.2.1416531741609; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:02:21 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!uq10no2128714igb.0!news-out.google.com!w7ni319qay.0!nntp.google.com!s7no746563qap.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:02:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.53.78.59; posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.78.59 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <709ed34d-0987-4ae0-b37c-7f996bf6691c@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: What is your opinion on Global Objects? From: sbelmont700@gmail.com Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:02:21 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23588 Date: 2014-11-20T17:02:21-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:35:20 PM UTC-5, J-P. Rosen wrote: > > Let's see what the other camp has to respond... >=20 As you have pointed out, either way is a double-edged sword; one programmer= s rigid and inflexible code is another programmers safe and reliable code, = and all engineering is compromise. That being said, in my experiences, the= only proven way to know when the customer is going to change the requireme= nts is when he says they are never going to change the requirements. For s= omething like a game, assuming a fixed number (especially one) of anything = is a surefire way to incur massive rework. Suppose, for instance, the game= evolves to a multiplayer version; a server might need to host a dynamic an= d always changing number of game engines. > > ??? Please explain you notion of "purity". >=20 I guess generally I mean "referentially transparent", but more practically = I mean "pragma Pure". -sb